[RonN5]

I don’t sense that this group discounts the value of measurements. It is more a case that the ASR group seems to prefer to use measurements over hearing to tell them what sounds good... and too many of the posters are all to willing to assess things they haven’t heard... and often negatively.

Why not use the Klippel this way... listen first, write down what you heard, measure second and write down what you found and publish both unedited... as done on Erin’s corner.

https://www.erinsaudiocorner.com/loudspeakers/philharmonic_bmr/

[MMcGary]

I am curious to know ...if the same speakers were to be shipped to Erin, if the same results would be obtained given the same measuring system?

[CurtisIIX]

The interesting thing is that all of my equipment has measurements from various places (HiFi News, Stereophile, SoundStageHifi, ASR) or direct from the supplier (Neurochome). It is a significant criteria for what I purchase.

A recent speaker purchase was the most difficult. SoundStageHifi had measurements for the B&W 705S2, and HiFi News and ASR had measurements for the KEF R3. The B&W speakers have good measurements, and the KEF speakers have great measurements. I have no doubt that if ASR measured the B&W speakers that they would get a lower preference rating than the KEF R3. I auditioned both of the speakers in-house (level matched using Roon and Cross-Spectrum Labs calibrated microphone) and definitely preferred the B&W. Now, this was a sighted test, but going into the evaluation I preferred the measurements, look, and cost of the KEF. The sighted bias would have against the B&W, but I preferred the sound of the B&W nevertheless. I would have been a mistake to trash the B&W speakers based on a single score alone.

[poseidonsvoice]

I am curious to know ...if the same speakers were to be shipped to Erin, if the same results would be obtained given the same measuring system?

I’ve had a few fellas ask me this question via pm. Although both Erin and Amir use Klippel...Klippel sells an assortment of measurement devices and the NFS (Near Field Scanner) is near or at the top of the heap. Erin’s method is more conventional, software based but he has tried to greatly minimize room influence on his measurements which is saying a lot (mind you it takes an extraordinary amount of time to produce those measurements as he has done, and they are greatly appreciated). There is more resolution with the NFS, and less time needed due to automation.

Here is the automated NFS in action:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=A7sSkDPh-U0

With regards to Murphy’s BMR, I believe what is most telling about that speaker is the strong correlation amongst the measurements completed by Erin and by Audioholics as reviewed by James Larson:

https://www.audioholics.com/bookshelf-speaker-reviews/bmr-philharmonitor-1

I’ll be curious to see if Amir gets to measure the BMR, but already it appears to be well designed as long as very high SPL’s aren’t required.

Best,
Anand.

[poseidonsvoice]

The interesting thing is that all of my equipment has measurements from various places (HiFi News, Stereophile, SoundStageHifi, ASR) or direct from the supplier (Neurochome). It is a significant criteria for what I purchase.

A recent speaker purchase was the most difficult. SoundStageHifi had measurements for the B&W 705S2, and HiFi News and ASR had measurements for the KEF R3. The B&W speakers have good measurements, and the KEF speakers have great measurements. I have no doubt that if ASR measured the B&W speakers that they would get a lower preference rating than the KEF R3. I auditioned both of the speakers in-house (level matched using Roon and Cross-Spectrum Labs calibrated microphone) and definitely preferred the B&W. Now, this was a sighted test, but going into the evaluation I preferred the measurements, look, and cost of the KEF. The sighted bias would have against the B&W, but I preferred the sound of the B&W nevertheless. I would have been a mistake to trash the B&W speakers based on a single score alone.

Thanks so much for your perspective. It’s good to have. I am surprised of course, but that’s okay.

Best,
Anand.

[CurtisIIX]

Thanks so much for your perspective. It’s good to have. I am surprised of course, but that’s okay.

Best,
Anand.

I am not sure what is surprising. I would like to think my comments have been reasonable and consistent.

[poseidonsvoice]

I am not sure what is surprising. I would like to think my comments have been reasonable and consistent.

I believe for you to be candid in your response (that is the better measuring speaker actually sounded worse subjectively). Not trying to offend.

Best,
Anand.

[Texbychoice]

Looked at a handful of Amir speaker reviews based on Klippel measurements.  None contained the same set of graphs.  If these reviews are supposed to represent a science based approach, the same set of graphs with commentary should be presented in every review.  Interesting that review of a Revel and Elac speaker included glowing praise of their performance in listening tests.  There was no Spectral Decay graphs for the Revel F35.  Other speaker review Spectral decay graphs are presented using different scales.  The Revel response graph has an odd bump below 40 Hz with a note to ignore.  Yet distortion at 20Hz from the Salk speaker is a fatal flaw.

Also read several posts that tried to explain how the Klippel system works.  If the explanations are correct, mathematics are involved in creating an approximation of the speaker as if it were a spherical radiator.  No doubt some very smart people designed the Klippel system.  Regardless, when approximation is involved a healthy dose of skepticism is appropriate.

Every speaker reviewed should be subjected to the same tests with the same graphs/data provided.  All graphs should be presented in the same scale.  It would also be more unbiased if tests were performed by someone other than the listening reviewer.  Present the test data without knowing the listening results.  Present the listening impressions without knowing the test results.   

 

[thebrieze]

Amir's tests have evolved over time based on community feedback. He cannot go back and retest past equipment as his methods evolve, but he does try to maintain forward consistency. Ignoring the actual results and attacking the consistency with other speaker reviews is being an apologist. His comment on distortion was that it was high at 200 Hz, not 20 Hz.

The flaw was evaluating the speaker at 96 dB (to maintain consistency with his other speaker evaluations) which is clearly above this speaker's limits. You need to look at the 86 dB distortion numbers and decide if that's reasonable or not for the price point and design objectives of the speaker.

[Texbychoice]

Agree, Amir's test methods have evolved.  What he is doing is certainly cool.  Does not immunize his reviews from scrutiny.  It is interesting Amir reveals running into an issue experienced by most, if not all, reviewers at one time or another.  They find a speaker that measures poorly, but sounds pretty good during listening tests.  OMG, how does science explain that.  Listening to music is emotion wrapped in every past life experience.  Science simply cannot boil that down to an infallible equation.